CDZ Biology Deniers

[pwjohn]

Biology deniers and balogne dealers share a lot in common.

 

[Divine Wind]

There is no single-celled human organism. A "human being" is a living human organism in the state of being. This is not about what you or I "consider" or "believe" ...Biology is a Science, not a faith. Biology says (not me) that when a zygote reproduces new cells it meets the criteria as an organism. I'm sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for you or if it interferes with your beliefs.

Nice twisting of words. You should be a lawyer.

 

[Boss]

There is no single-celled human organism. A "human being" is a living human organism in the state of being. This is not about what you or I "consider" or "believe" ...Biology is a Science, not a faith. Biology says (not me) that when a zygote reproduces new cells it meets the criteria as an organism. I'm sorry if that is an inconvenient truth for you or if it interferes with your beliefs.

Nice twisting of words. You should be a lawyer.

Twisting? Humans aren't defined as unicellular life in any biology book I know of. The dictionary defines "being" as literally, in the state of being or existing. What are you seeing as twisting?

Look, DW... this is the CDZ, if you don't have some valid evidence to support arguments and refute what is presented, you need to sit this one out. All you've been doing is throwing your emotive opinions at me and demanding I accept them as facts.

 

[Divine Wind]

...Look, DW... this is the CDZ, if you don't have some valid evidence to support arguments and refute what is presented, you need to sit this one out. All you've been doing is throwing your emotive opinions at me and demanding I accept them as facts.

You know are as all knowing about CDZ rules as you know about biology..

Since you want me to "sit this one out", I'll do so. It's your call. Have a nice day, sir.

/unsubscribe

...I know everything in the biology book....

USMB Rules and Guidelines

"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

 

[Boss]

...Look, DW... this is the CDZ, if you don't have some valid evidence to support arguments and refute what is presented, you need to sit this one out. All you've been doing is throwing your emotive opinions at me and demanding I accept them as facts.

You know are as all knowing about CDZ rules as you know about biology..

Since you want me to "sit this one out", I'll do so. It's your call. Have a nice day, sir.

/unsubscribe

...I know everything in the biology book....

USMB Rules and Guidelines

"Zone 1": Clean Debate Zone (CDZ) / Introduce Yourself (Welcome Threads): Civil discourse is the focus here, regardless of topic matter. Constructive criticism and debate is the tone. No insulting, name calling, or putting down other posters. Consider it a lesson in Civics.

Hey, you're the one who suggested I consult a biology book after having offered nothing in any biology book as your argument. I think that is a great time to point out which forum you're in because these emotive and opinion-based arguments often lead to name calling and insulting.

If I put you down by suggesting we wrap your head in Saran Wrap, allow me to apologize and amend my argument. Let's wrap some idiot's head who believes biology determines if a living species exists by it's ability to survive outside of normal expected conditions. Better?

I do know everything in the biology book. Sorry if that sounds like bragging. I'm 57 and I've been intrigued by biology since I was a young boy. It's my favorite science subject. I am quite comfortable in any debate rooted in biology.

 

[Picaro]

So your proof is from second hand accounts recorded in a book written by illiterate peasants from thousands of years ago? Again, you keep making these huge leaps. Science requires more than two personalized accounts. Try again.

So ... just how do 'illiterates' go about writing books, again? Fascinating claim here ... the authors of the new testament and old testament 'books' were in fact very educated and intelligent, by the standards of any era in history, including the current modern era. Only the unsophisticated and ignorant would claim otherwise, usually 'new atheists' who have little education and reasoning skills and are easily influenced by fads and cult mantras re 'religion n stuff'.

 

[Picaro]

One of the better collections on the subject of 'transgender' issues, and updated as new info comes out.

Download My Genes Made Me Do it - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence |

Some of it I disagree with, but not a lot. What is certain is that most of the 'science' claiming homosexuality and 'transgenderism' is 'normal' is complete junk, just political propaganda, and not in the least 'scientific', and just a hoax.

Not everything can be blamed on genes, most often it's the interaction of genes and environment, and when it comes to human behavior, it's very complex. I think there is a tendency to blame genes on behavior far too broadly. But that does not mean there isn't some sort of hard-wired biology involved in certain behaviors or illness'.

Denying that the brain can't have genetic abnormalities is like denying that the body can't. The brain after all is just another organ and part of the body.

Homosexuality has been a part of the human experience since recorded history. Despite horrendous oppression, torture and death in some societies it persists at roughly the same rate. Likewise is the utter failure of "ex-gay" programs. At best, they turn men celibate. That seems to support the idea that there is something besides just "behavior" involved. Whether it's "normal" or not is irrelevant. Defining what's "normal" is culturally based as much as biological. At one point being black was considered biologically inferior. Perhaps it's better to step back from using labels like hoax and abnormal when describing things like this. What is the point in it? Do they harm anyone? No. They just want the same rights as any other human being in this country. Why is such a concept so hard to understand?

Here is an article on a fairly recent study:
Homosexuality is Genetic: Strongest Evidence Yet

Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."


That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.


While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper.


Most stunningly, the team who conducted this study comes from the scientific community that has been hesitant to acknowledge the claims of previous studies, not because of their own opinions, but because of a lack of conclusive data.​

The article concludes with: Still, the researchers stress that regardless of genetic preference, genes are but a factor in the greater picture, taking into account that social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born.

Already posted a link to a book that goes into all that, and as for the newest study, the claims it makes, like all the other 'studies', fall far short of the claims being made for it as well.

On That New “Gay Gene” Study


In other words, this appears to be a theory in search of facts; that is, some folks start with the theory that SSA is genetic and work backwards. Women who mate with SSA men, it is suggested, are more fecund: they pump out more babies. What we have is a balancing act. Is it because the women who “go for” SSA men are more fertile, or is it the male gametes from SSA men are causing greater fecundity? And how much more fertile must these women be (by whatever cause) to match the rate of baby making seen in women who mate with non-SSA men?

That would seem to be (to reuse the apt word) considerable, especially these days when SSA behavior is seen as socially acceptable. SSA men aren’t making many babies. True, many SSA men in the past days were encouraged to take a wife and reproduce. Not so now. Yet SSA is on the rise. Another paradox—but only if you insist the heritability theory is (somehow) correct. There is no paradox if the diseugenic SSA trait is caused by environmental stressors. I have some colleagues who suspect SSA is caused by a yet-to-be-discovered virus. I doubt this strongly, because it seems that genetic non-immunity to this virus would also die out of the population (the virus could mutate, of course).

... and of course the link in my post also discusses the same 'study' in the appropriate chapter. There is zero evidence for any genetic 'gayness'; it's just a fetish, and one strongly linked to mental disorders to boot.

 

[Picaro]

So when does a new child's life begin? What does the science tell us?

Their life begins at conception when they become a genetically distinct organism. However, they don't become a "child" until the zygote grows enough to be identified as one.

We become human beings through stages of growth, not instantaneously at conception. The idea of "life begins at conception" is related to religious ideas of a person's soul, not biological fact. Obviously the sperm and egg were already alive prior to forming a zygote.

Sounds much more like rationalization than science here. It''s immediately obvious where human life begins, that's why it's called 'conception' in the first place. Since 'viability' is apparently key to your rationalizations, do you agree with these 'medical ethicists' that parents be allowed to kill babies up to the age of two years old? What's the difference between a mere 'zygote' and a 1 year old? I mean, if some notion or other merely requires 'sciencey lingo' to justify, then why not just legalize all killing?


Abstract
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? | Journal of Medical Ethics

 

[Picaro]

Except for Josephus Flavius, why would the Romans give a fuck about a carpenter rabbi?

That fact remains, whatever happened had a lasting impact on a lot of people. A movement that grew. Do you really believe was completely fabricated?

Yes, this is the correct view; and that impact was a very positive effect long term, certainly compared with the pagan and hedonistic/nihilistic alternatives. The idea that mere con artists would go to so much trouble just to run a scam is a ridiculous claim. There was no 'payday' for the players, and in fact their most likely fates were being killed, not getting rich.

 

[P@triot]

The left-wing science denying continues...

Feminists to CDC on Drinking While Pregnant: Screw You

 

[initforme]

The very first thing that needs to go is the pledge. Kids could care less about it and why do we force schools to recite it? To indoctrinate them?

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[P@triot]

The left continues to reject science (and reason, logic, facts, etc.)...

Fact: this idiot is a man

Fact: this idiot is a caucasian

Both are indisputable scientific fact. Only the left would even attempt to proclaim anything different.

White man claims he’s transracial. And what ethnicity does he identify with? This might be a first.

 

[P@triot]

The very first thing that needs to go is the pledge. Kids could care less about it and why do we force schools to recite it? To indoctrinate them?

To build some loyalty to the greatest country in the world.

 

[Dragonlady]

The very first thing that needs to go is the pledge. Kids could care less about it and why do we force schools to recite it? To indoctrinate them?

To build some loyalty to the greatest country in the world.

Being forced to recite words isn’t building loyalty.

 

[Picaro]

The very first thing that needs to go is the pledge. Kids could care less about it and why do we force schools to recite it? To indoctrinate them?

To build some loyalty to the greatest country in the world.

Being forced to recite words isn’t building loyalty.

You mean like regurgitating PC Nazi tripe put out by assorted left wing gimps and deviants on demand, just because some Democrats demand it?

 

[theHawk]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

We're talking about facts. Like the fact that the polar ice-cap grew an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles) by 2014 when progressives claimed it would be completely "melted" by then. We have progressives denying indisputable climate data like that, indisputable biology like chromosomes, etc.

Don't you consider that to be at least slightly problematic, if not worse?

The left beleive in unintelligent design. That an inorganic universe somehow magically formed complex dna code out of thin air by random chance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

Is evolution a force like gravity acting on all species recall times?

 

[Picaro]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

Is evolution a force like gravity acting on all species recall times?

Evolution is a faith based fantasy cult driven largely by political agendas, and so mathematically improbable it makes even many pagan superstitions, like frog worshipers for instance, look Einsteinian in comparisons of 'rationalism'.

 

[danielpalos]

Ok...now it's clear...we're talking about evidence based science (like evolution and climate change) vs faith based pseudo-science like intelligent design.

We're talking about facts. Like the fact that the polar ice-cap grew an astounding 60% (over 900,000 sq. miles) by 2014 when progressives claimed it would be completely "melted" by then. We have progressives denying indisputable climate data like that, indisputable biology like chromosomes, etc.

Don't you consider that to be at least slightly problematic, if not worse?

The left beleive in unintelligent design. That an inorganic universe somehow magically formed complex dna code out of thin air by random chance.

Or, Nexus 6, with Zardoz and the incorrigibles.